Train Operating Companies v Trade Unions dispute - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

But the Mayor, and hence TfL^» (Transport for London - about), are Labour controlled, and they support DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) on Crossrail/TFL^▸ (Transport for London) Rail & London Overground!

[ellendune]

I am reminded of a previous post in this thread

I think the safety issue re DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) could have been better argued by ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) – their PR^▸ (Public Relations) is truly awful, and does their members a great injustice.  In particular, the Hayes & Harlington incident changed things.  Until then I think there was an assumption that if the Driver got the door interlocks it was OK to go.  After Hayes the Driver was criticised for not looking back down the train to ensure every door was clear, as RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) seemed to be saying the door interlocks could not be relied upon.

Now this may be OK for a 3 car Turbo, but is this duty not unduly onerous for a 12 coach train on the crowded Southern network?  Even with CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision), the Driver will have 24 images to look at – I don’t know what size they are, but on a crowded platform how can the Driver be sure that no-one standing close to a door has not, for example got their raincoat trapped.

It appears this industrial action has become politicised, though I am not sure whether it by the government or the unions or both. This has had the effect of concealing a legitimate concern.

Companies that have harmonious relations are ones where such matters are resolved by discussion in a spirit of cooperation in which both sides listen.

Where companies assert a managers right to manage - usually a code for managers not listening - or unions resort to industrial action overly quickly, then cooperation goes out of the window. Once gone it is very difficult to restore as one side feeds off the other.

If you get external influences (e.g. governments) involved who are not party to the negotiations who therefore are by definition not listening then it makes it worse.

It doesn't matter whether it has been accepted before if circumstances change and there are concerns they must be addressed.

Didn't someone important talk about starting to listen to people who think they no longer have control over their lives. 

[TaplowGreen]

The President of the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) (not some random shop steward) comes out with the statement "if we all spit together we can drown the bastards" referring to the (democratically elected) Government............stop to imagine for a moment what the reaction would be if a Government minister described Trade unionists in the same way?

It's just old fashioned left wing bigotry/rabble rousing, I bet old Bob Crow is looking down (or perhaps up) rubbing his hands together and nodding approvingly.

[ellendune]

This is a bit more colourful language, but not a lot different to right wing politicians talk of breaking the unions, who also have democratically elected leaders.   

This sort language from whatever side is not helpful

[ChrisB]

Slight difference in that the whole Government is democratically elected though

[grahame]

The President of the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) (not some random shop steward) comes out with the statement "if we all spit together we can drown the bastards" referring to the (democratically elected) Government............stop to imagine for a moment what the reaction would be if a Government minister described Trade unionists in the same way?

It's just old fashioned left wing bigotry/rabble rousing, I bet old Bob Crow is looking down (or perhaps up) rubbing his hands together and nodding approvingly.

According to the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page), it's the General Secretary rather than the President who speaks for the RMT.

Mr Cash said he was "not interested" in RMT president Sean Hoyle's comments, which were reportedly made at a "fringe political meeting".

[snip]

He continued: "The person who speaks for the RMT is the general secretary, and that's me.

[paul7575]

According to the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page), it's the General Secretary rather than the President who speaks for the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers).

Mr Cash said he was "not interested" in RMT president Sean Hoyle's comments, which were reportedly made at a "fringe political meeting".

He continued: "The person who speaks for the RMT is the general secretary, and that's me.

Perhaps Mr Hoyle will now get his fraternal colleagues in the CWU^» (Communication Workers Union - website) to black Mr Cash's Christmas Card delivery to him?

Paul

[TonyK]

Slight difference in that the whole Government is democratically elected though

That would open a whole new debate on our electoral process if we were not keeping discussion to railways.

Democrates must be turning in his grave!

[JayMac]

Slight difference in that the whole Government is democratically elected though

Except Baroness Evans of course, who sits in cabinet.

And what defines 'Government'? All those civil servants that keep the wheels of government in motion aren't democratically elected.

As for the legislature, we have a whole branch that is unelected.

[ellendune]

The point I was trying to make is that tory politicians and left wing rabble rousers alike are equally unhelpful if they start to meddle in employment issues that they are not directly involved with.  They get in the way of sorting out and resolving the legitimate concerns of employers and their employees. 

[ChrisB]

The Government is the party in power and those making the laws are all elected - those in Government in the Upper House being subservient to those in the elected lower house.

[ChrisB]

Labour's Winter of Discontent, anyone? Both sides equally meddle

[ellendune]

Labour's Winter of Discontent, anyone? Both sides equally meddle

I agree

[TaplowGreen]

This is a bit more colourful language, but not a lot different to right wing politicians talk of breaking the unions, who also have democratically elected leaders.   

This sort language from whatever side is not helpful

Happy to agree to if you can quote or directly cite an example of "right wing" politicians (a subjective term in itself) suggesting that Trade Unionists should be drowned or otherwise done away with.

I know that the Left have a problem condemning the advocation of violence without equivocation or whataboutery (they've struggled from Stalin through Kim Il sung to Pol Pot and most recently Castro), but hey, "colourful", "drown the bastards" why not? 

[JayMac]

Not a politician, but Peter Wilkinson, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s Passenger Services Director, has said some pretty inflammatory things about rail staff. As a senior civil servant his utterances are at just one remove from his political paymasters. Polar opposite in viewpoint but not too different in sentiment to that of the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) President.

Said to residents of Croydon at a meeting:
"Over the next three years we're going to be having punch ups and we will see industrial action and I want your support."

On train drivers threats to strike: "I'm furious about it and it has got to change - we have got to break them. They have all borrowed money to buy cars and got credit cards. They can't afford to spend too long on strike and I will push them into that place. They will have to decide if they want to give a good service or get the hell out of my industry."

One side wants to spit on the other. The other side wants a punch up.

There really is no need to bring the likes if Stalin, Pol Pot or Castro into this thread. Otherwise, for a balancing far right viewpoint, there's a danger that Godwin's Law will be invoked.